State Employee Bargaining Coalitation v. Roland, ___F.3d___( 2d Cir. May 31, 2013), is an important case. I am surprised that this case has not gotten alot of national press. The 2d Circuit holds that targeting Union employees for layoff violates the First Amendment. The court applies strict scrutiny and reasoned as follows:

We ourselves have stated thatit cannot “be questioned that the First Amendment’s protection of speech andassociational rights extends to labor union activities.” Conn. State Fed’n of Teachers v.Bd. of Educ. Members, 538 F.2d 471, 478 (2d Cir. 1976); see also Int’l Longshoremen’sAss’n v. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor, 642 F.2d 666, 670 (2d Cir. 1981) (“TheFirst Amendment’s protection of the right of association extends to labor unionactivities.”).However, we have never articulated a standard for determining whether, and underwhat circumstances, a public entity’s employment decisions violate this right to associatein unions. With respect to a public employee’s right to associate with political parties, theSupreme Court stated in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois that government employersmay not “condition[] hiring decisions on political belief and association . . . unless thegovernment has a vital interest in doing so.” 497 U.S. 62, 78 (1990); see also Branti v.Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 520 (1980) (holding that termination of public defenders becausethey were not affiliated with Democratic Party violated First Amendment); Elrod v.Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 372-73 (1976) (holding that public employees who alleged theywere discharged because they were not members of sheriff’s political party stated a FirstAmendment claim); Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 609-10 (1967)(invalidating state university system’s prohibition on membership in Communist Party).The Supreme Court was concerned that the government would “wield[] its power tointerfere with its employees’ freedom to believe and associate,” Rutan, 497 U.S. at 76,and noted that “conditioning public employment on the provision of support for thefavored political party ‘unquestionably inhibits protected belief and association,’” id. at69, quoting Elrod, 427 U.S. at 359. It therefore held that hiring based on political partyaffiliation was subject to strict scrutiny and must be “narrowly tailored to further vitalgovernment interests.” Rutan, 497 U.S. at 74; see also Branti, 445 U.S. at 515-16(requiring “an overriding interest of vital importance” to fire a public employee solely forhis private beliefs (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).Conditioning public employment on union membership, no less than on politicalassociation, inhibits protected association and interferes with government employees’freedom to associate. It is therefore subject to the same strict scrutiny, and may be doneonly “in the most compelling circumstances.” Rutan, 497 U.S. at 76.